> Going with the possibly-hallucinated AI answer is rational as long as you know the hallucination rate isn't 100%

I hadn't even considered people might evaluate knowledge that way. That's legit horrific lol.

"What's the literal odds this info is wrong" vs "is this answer consistent with everything else I know, and if not, what other info would I need to change my mind"

I don't understand what's horrifying you. Assume "is this consistent with everything I know" is yes here. Now what?

And "what would it take to change my mind" is a picture of the film for most of these. Is there a problem there? There's very little chance these people are going to trust the AI over their eyes, they just don't want to bother hunting down pictures to use their eyes.

I think it is pretty standard for how people approach knowledge sources. What's the chance my doctor, colleague, plumber, or random Reddit thread Etc is wrong.

Your alternative is also something that people do, but rarely consciously.

I mean the questions are on random movie trivia, the alternative is just guessing. I think you're overthinking it.